About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. we went because it met our goal to give it about qaeda. we have been in the taliban government and set the country sorted into free play, we develop some kind of moral responsibility for helping them get it right. third, geostrategic plates in america in the world's interest to have a stable region. if afghanistan were unstable, acting pakistan's stability would be very tenuous and it challenges anyway, but i think it's important. my view is that we need to do is be persistent and consistent in the region. the reason people are so nervous is because in 2004 the inc. were going to leave and they seemed asleep before. in 1989 returned from the region. it doesn't matter whether each afghan style that appeared its become a commonly accepted truth that we left in 1989 and they're starting to think we're going to walk in 2014 and there will be nobody they can rely on. they'll have other strategic allies. so what they looking for is the idea of a long-term strategic partnership. i don't think that the specific number of troops. i think it's the idea you got an ally somewhere in their
out of her hands. but in pakistan the government is still providing shelter for the taliban. and there's still no real solid ra approachment between us and then. so it is very hard to see that her soothing, her repairing of applianc appliance-- alliances necessarily resulted in concrete policy achievements. >> suarez: susan, wasn't it a pretty complicated mess, not only where places as trudy knows, like pakistan, but even with some of america's closest allies. >> well, that's exactly right. i mean these are times where, you know, you play the hand you are dealt as secretary of state not only because the white house decides the big picture policy. but the world over the last four years has been a complicated place who would have expected that actually europe our closee-- closest allies would have been in a period of enormous internal turmoil greater than anything they have seen since the end of world war 2. so clinton was left to manage those relationships. i think i would say that she was often a soother, but often as not she was also someone who would speak out in a tough manner. look
the government is still providing shelter for the taliban. and there's still no real solid ra approachment between us and then. so it is very hard to see that her soothing her repairing of appliance appliance-- alliances necessarily resulted in concrete policy achievements. >> suarez: susan wasn't it a pretty complicated mess not only where places as trudy knows like pakistan but even with some of america's closest allies. >> well, that's exactly right. i mean these are times where you know, you play the hand you are dealt as secretary of state not only because the white house decides the big picture policy. but the world over the last four years has been a complicated place who would have expected that actually europe our closee-- closest allies would have been in a period of enormous internal turmoil greater than anything they have seen since the end of world war 2. so clinton was left to manage those relationships. i think i would say that she was often a soother but often as not she was also someone who would speak out in a tough manner. look at her championship with the russians. even
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)